ANZ

I would like to update wife's car and I am considering these two. My goals are gas mileage, reliability and cargo space. Obviously not handling or speed.

The outback with a CVT gets 22-29 while the CRV gets 22-28 but I wonder if the real life mileage for the outback would be lower due to more weight and 4-wheel drive which I don't care much about. I had a honda civic in the late 90's and frequently exceeded EP estimates.

The cargo space is bigger in the outback, otherwise they are about equal in other respects. I would get a basic model for both. Which one would you buy?

alnielsen

iTrader: (4)

I've owned 4 Subaru's (wife's car). 2 Outbacks (1999 & 2004), Loyale and a Justy. Real world mileage will be about 25 mpg overall for the Outback w/auto trans. The AWD comes in handy in the winter.

nycgps

iTrader: (1)

CRV. Honda's engine would outlast one from Subaru (even tho its really Toyota right now)

Subaru is not a bad choice, but if you don't need 4wd. Then just get CRV (I thought CRV has AWD too?)

HaydonGS

iTrader: (1)

Subaru Outback, My sister has a new CR-V and my mom has a new Outback. The Outback has been more reliable and more rugged.

Roidz

Neither. I know that's not helpful, but that's how I feel.

SayNoToPistons

iTrader: (8)

Why are you limited to the CR-V and Outback if you dont care about the AWD? That leaves you to so many better options.

lateralus

iTrader: (1)

If it was me, I'd go with the Subaru.

But honestly both of those should wind up being good reliable cars.... Just drive both of them, let her drive both of them, and see which one you like driving the most, and go with it. For what you are wanting out the car, I don't think you can really go wrong.

Roidz

If the new Cherokee's gas mileage wasn't 16-22 I would say get one of them. That's what I would get, but I wouldn't care about the mileage as much I guess. I think the new Cherokee's look SICK!

Gambit

Outback.

I had a 2010 Legacy with the CVT (basically the same as the Outback) as a loaner and put about 1k miles on it, and I averaged 30.3 mpg.

2tone

iTrader: (3)

my ex-honda always exceeded honda's mileage numbers.

if you don't need awd, don't get the subie...i mean, that's there thing...but if you don't need it, why get a car that specialized in it. the cr-v, while there are other choices, would be a great base model econo suv i think...

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

I was along time Honda owner and love them to death, I never had a problem with my Civic, CRX, or Accord. But an ex of mine had a new CR-V and had several problems with it believe it or not. My sister drives an Impreza Outback with 130,000 trouble free miles. Her mileage is around 25mpg I believe according to her fuelly. And honestly it gets regular oil changes and maintenance but she never cleans it, hauls all kinds of dogs, equipment, etc. around in it and the interior and everything inside works like a champ.

She was also ran off the road by a red light runner and went over a bus stop bench, a tree, and a curb and there was only minimal damage. Any other car would have been destroyed I think.

ANZ

Sounds like either one is a good choice. I don't care about the 4WD but if you can have it without sacrificing the gas mileage too much - why not. Time to do some test drives. Looks like people are getting good gas mileage with the Subaru's CVT.

In terms of other options, I have considered a Jetta TDI wagon but I am turned off by bad reliability ratings. The new TSX wagon is a possibility but it is smaller and is more expensive. I really want good mileage and cargo space. Any other options I am missing?

lateralus

iTrader: (1)

Does anybody know much about that Nissan Juke crossover? It is being advertised as getting high 20s for city driving and over 30 for highway mpg, and looks like it would have a good amount of space... But other than what the commercials and the brief stuff I have seen in magazines say, I don't know a thing about it...

If I had to guess, I would say that the Subaru and the Honda would probably both be better bets than the Juke (especially since it just came out and will probably have a couple kinks that need to be fixed), but figured it was worth throwin out there.... Anyway, anybody have any info on it?

Here is Nissan's page for it.... http://www.nissanusa.com/juke/?next=...stcard.button1.

SayNoToPistons

iTrader: (8)

The Juke is a joke for space.

8 Maniac

iTrader: (1)

My problem for the Juke is that it looks too much like it was designed for younger people. By that, I mean it looks like it was designed for kids because it looks like a toy. I guess it wouldn't be bad for a first car for some kids, but I know I would choose something boring before going for that kind of "interesting".

As NoPistons said, it's very small. Most 4 door hatches probably have more space in the rear. With the seats down, it seems to have a fair amount of space, but that applies to a lot of sedans as well. The market for the Juke seems to almost be exclusively for younger drivers.

Between the CRV and the outback, the outback takes my vote. I haven't seen the newer models in person, but I've seen older models of both and the outback just seems like a step up in overall feel and appearance. From what I've seen in pictures, I'd say it seems to still be that way. The CRV definitely seems to be a nicer vehicle than before, but there's still something about it that doesn't seem as nice as the outback.

delhi

CRV is really a FWD until slippage occurs. Subaru ain't. Especially for the manual version. AWD is Subaru's claim to fame. Their cars are built around the symmetrical boxer engine and its AWD system. Apart from Audi's Quattro, there aren't any equal.

2tone

iTrader: (3)

^ but he doesn't need awd

alnielsen

iTrader: (4)

I believe he lives near me. It would be handy.

2tone

iTrader: (3)

ok, but if he doesn't need it or want it, why pay extra for it? i don't know...if it doesn't affect mpg that much in the subi, then maybe it's "worth" just getting it, but if it does, i wouldn't.

--
subi base - 23.2
crv base - 21.7
this is a bit of a wash for me...1.5k over 3 to 5 years isn't much, and it really depends on the dealership deals going on in his area. oh, and what each one comes with standard.

subi - 22/29, 170hp
crv - 21/28 mpg, 180hp
seems like a wash here too, but i would bet money the crv gets consistent low 30's on highway, so my money's on honda here, as you mentioned in your 1st post too.

interior - subjective, just to look at each and test drive them.

exterior - also subjective, the i think the subi looks horrendous, personally.

subi cargo room - 34/71 (back/seats folded down)
crv cargo room - 36/73 (back/seats folded down)
crv is actually slightly bigger here, but negligible

they are pretty similar. to me it'd simply come down to the DEAL you can get and which one FEELS right to YOU. i've heard good things about subi, but i have personal (good) experience with honda too. honestly, if it's just a base model, and none of the frills matter, a USED crv would be the best bet i think. Take the depreciation hit out of the equation and you can't really go wrong with a used honda.

oh, what about a rav 4?

8 Maniac

iTrader: (1)

Even if you don't expect to need or want AWD, I'd go ahead and lean towards that if most other things are equal. It's better than finding that unexpected situation after going with the 2WD